Since they need to train for upcoming missions in Iraq (and maybe Iran) the fighter planes from the guard base at our airport have been training quite a lot. You can't usually see them. They are noisy, but small and fast, and flying a bit too high to spot them. Once in a while you do, and they look like tiny black fleas. It's unseasonably cold today, and all my windows are shut, but in spite of that, you can't escape this blunt, insistent roar that crescendos and dissipates as the planes come and go.<br><br>This is nothing like a low, one-time flyover. That at least is a spectacle. This noise is occasionally piercing, but usually just dull and steady. It doesn't go well with any kind of spring day, chilly or beautiful. If, somehow, I believed that the Bush administration were a force for doing good in this world, maybe I wouldn't mind it. But the fact of the matter is that in the first place I am long since past my youthful awe for fighter planes, and the dangerous repercussions of a possible new war on Iran greatly intensifies the annoyance.<br><br>Not long ago. I was on a departing plane and we had to wait a couple minutes for some F16s to land. As we heard them pass by, the pilot announced, "Ladies and gentlemen, that's the sound of freedom!." <br><br>In a couple of years these planes will be relocated to some base elsewhere. We are told that instead we will have unmanned drones here that they call "reapers." What a clever name. I wonder if they 'll be noisy. Will they, too, provide us with lots of "the sound of freedom?"<br><br>

Your reading to much into it.<br><br>Maybe not so much where you are - but here jet training is at least 3 or 4 days a week been that way for years - So its has nothing to do with Iran,, unless they think Iran is planing another stunt similar to 911 <br><br>Anyway Bush is leaving office soon and traditionally they don't start WARs for the next Pres to take over the mess with a few months left in Bush cabinet. Also keep in mind that after the elections there is a "transitional" period of about 6 months. So don't expect anything big like an invasion of Iran during that period as well <-- as mentioned above,, unless Iran pulls another stunt. <br><br>Bottom line;<br>The US Army just does not have the personal to occupy 3 different countries at the same time. <-- DuH<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Anyway Bush is leaving office soon and traditionally they don't start WARs for the next Pres to take over the mess with a few months left in Bush cabinet. Also keep in mind that after the elections there is a "transitional" period of about 6 months. So don't expect anything big like an invasion of Iran during that period as well <-- as mentioned above,, unless Iran pulls another stunt. <br><br>Bottom line;<br>The US Army just does not have the personal to occupy 3 different countries at the same time. <-- DuH<p><hr></blockquote><p>Ah but you are working under the assumption that the world works the way it always has. Didnt eight years of George Bush not change that a bit? Invading sovereign nations? He has to fix his legacy which is currently the worst President ever. He vows a middle east peace accord before he leaves office. That is quickly turning from a farce to a sad joke. <br><br>So what does he have left? He can convince someone, us maybe, that Iran has pulled a stunt and he strikes to take our minds off the mess he has made of our nation, our armies, and our treasury. Would that make any sense? A little late to be explaining any of the decider's logic.<br><br><br><br><br>

Poly not sure where your coming from ??<br><br>[color:blue]Invading sovereign nations?</font color=blue> - You mean Iraq I would agree with you but even the Arabs agree that the Taliban had to go - so its should read sovereign nation,, with out the plural.<br><br>[color:blue]A little late to be explaining any of the decider's logic.</font color=blue> - Who can explain that - all I said was a president does not start a war with only a few months left in office <-- unless like I mentioned Iran pulls something big, which even that lunatic would wait until Bush is out of office.<br><br><br>

It wasn't plural. Bush has a policy of invading sovereign nations. He showed that by invading Iraq. He may show it again by attacking Iran. (See how that english works? No plural.)<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>all I said was a president does not start a war with only a few months left in office<p><hr></blockquote><p> And I am saying that logic does not hold with George Bush. His legacy is backed into a corner and who knows what he will do.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> unless like I mentioned Iran pulls something big<p><hr></blockquote><p>As keymaker has pointed out Iran has pulled nothing except in George Bush's mind. Iran does not have to pull anything. George Bush just has to make something up as he did before invading Iraq. If he wants John McCain elected he can get is into another conflict so that a warrior like McCain is what we need and not a wet behind the ears Illinois senator. Or at least that is what is going through his pea brain. His only chance at legacy is for McCain to drag it out. If Obama is elected then Iraq becomes the biggest blunder made by a sitting President. It already is but even in Republican history books that will be written if Obama is elected. Bush can't have that.<br><br>

One thing that is certain is that there is not enough money available for that type of gambit.<br>Considering that US citizens on average have 650 times more lead in theiir organisms than they did a century ago.. It is no wonder the President is a fool.<br><br>Problem is .. How can we trust anyone with that much lead poisoning?<br><br>

"This is nothing like a low, one-time flyover. That at least is a spectacle. This noise is occasionally piercing, but usually just dull and steady."<br><br>Living in a city that has an air force base and a commercial airfield just 10 kilometres from the center and having the flight paths of just about all planes going more or less directly overhead I kinda disagree. On a very cloudy day the Finnish Air Force F-18s always fly low over the city on take-off and landing and sometimes have to circle a few go-arounds before landing so hearing that roar 3-5 times in the morning and 3-5 times in the afternoon can be a PITA. OTOH I'm glad they have the right insignia on them, and not some foreign one, but still, the roar is sometimes terrible, albeit majestic. The commercial airliners aren't so bad, though. But that F-18 rumble can pierce through walls and windows.<br><br>

I live near an airport but in a rural setting. I have an airforce base at the next nearest major airport.. about three minutes flying for an F-18<br>I often get high and low level buzz-overs by all and sundry single or formations. One may imagine what three C-130 accompanied by numerous Chinooks passing at less than 100 feet above my yard may feel and sound like.. but imagine it like you were living in a remote part of Namibia.. for this is more like what my backyard is like as far as intrusion goes, normally.<br><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.